Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) is expected to be summoned by the Taipei City Police Department after a rally in Taipei on Saturday last week resulted in injuries to eight police officers.
The Ministry of the Interior on Sunday said that police had collected evidence of obstruction of public officials and coercion by an estimated 1,000 “disorderly” demonstrators.
The rally — led by Huang to mark one year since a raid by Taipei prosecutors on then-TPP chairman and former Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) — might have contravened the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法), as the organizers had failed to apply for a permit, Taipei police said.
A disturbing photo surfaced following the demonstration, which showed Huang standing in the sea of protesters with his left arm wrapped around the neck of police officer Chen Yu-chien (陳育健).
In response, Huang insisted that he had merely placed his arm on the officer’s shoulder, citing an artificial intelligence (AI)-altered photo of Chen smiling as “proof” that he meant no harm.
Huang later taunted President William Lai (賴清德), telling the administration to “bring it on,” treating the confrontation as a political spectacle and shrugging it off as unfounded political persecution.
While one might characterize Huang’s behavior as bizarre and, frankly, unacceptable for someone in his position, this was by no means an isolated incident. It was simply the latest act in Huang’s ongoing reckless political theater.
Huang played a recording at a legislative hearing in June that seemed to reveal a prosecutor aggressively interrogating a suspect — an apparent infringement of the Personal Data Protection Act (個人資料保護法).
He later revealed the “recording” was AI-generated, calling it an “illustrative example” of “threatening tone and insulting language.”
With his extensive background in law, Huang should be fully aware of the legal implications of his actions. It is clear that he is acting with deliberate intent to sow discord — repeatedly flouting regulations and daring the authorities to hold him accountable has become a deliberate feature of his political playbook.
Huang’s bold disregard for the law mirrors his striking political transformation — once a rather progressive activist, he has come to refashion himself into a right-leaning populist, turning his politics into a series of performative confrontations.
Under his leadership, the TPP has increasingly echoed the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) agenda, aligning with the KMT to force through legislation using their combined majority in the legislature.
The TPP has become a convenient auxiliary to the KMT — less a viable alternative and more a willing attack dog to be released whenever an opportunity to inflame division presents itself.
Since assuming the chairmanship in January, Huang has made no effort to hide what appears to be a personal vendetta against the Democratic Progressive Party and Lai himself. He has repeatedly labeled the president a dictator and openly stated that his primary goal is to unseat Lai in the 2028 presidential election.
Huang’s exact motives are unclear, but it is evident that his chaos is calculated, and could very well be a tool for advancing his political ambitions.
He has already confirmed his intent to run for New Taipei City mayor next year, signaling that his provocations are not just for show, but part of a broader strategy to boost his political profile and consolidate power.
That is precisely what makes Huang so dangerous — not his repeated disorderly stunts, but that his theatrics are weaponized through a formal political platform and sustained by a devoted following.
An opportunist bent on manufacturing discord and disregarding the rule of law is already cause for concern, but one legitimized by institutional authority and backed by a zealous base poses a far greater threat to Taiwan’s political stability.
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS